Internet providers don't want competition, and legislators are on their side.

Newly proposed legislation in Missouri could prevent municipalities from competing against private Internet service providers.

Proposed by Republican State Representative Rocky Miller, the bill takes aim at "municipal competitive services" without specifically singling out broadband. But it appears to be targeted at Internet service. CenturyLink reportedly objected to a city broadband plan in Columbia, Missouri, recently, and a group advocating for municipal broadband said the bill "would limit communities' abilities to support broadband deployment in their areas."

Further Reading

"The state of Missouri is the latest legislature to attempt to erect barriers to the deployment of broadband networks that are critical to the future of its local economies and the nation," the Coalition for Local Internet Choice (CLIC) said. "High-bandwidth communications networks are the electricity of the 21st century and no community should be stymied or hampered in its efforts to deploy new future-proof communications infrastructure for its citizens—either by itself or with willing private partners. It is ironic that while the International CES show in Las Vegas spotlighted hundreds of new devices and applications that require big bandwidth, legislation would be introduced in Missouri that would impair the development of networks that enable that bandwidth."

Springfield and Marshall operate their own networks while North Kansas City leases fiber to Google and another private provider, CLIC told Ars.

Missouri already imposes restrictions on municipal telecom but has an exception for "Internet-type" services. About 20 states nationwide have passed restrictions on municipal broadband.

Miller's bill would require a majority vote to offer a "competitive service," but even if residents voted to build a broadband network, the municipality would not be allowed to use revenue from other town services to pay for it. This would make it difficult to build a network, as new broadband competitors incur heavy up-front construction costs before collecting enough revenue to support operations. The bill does allow towns to offer broadband without a ballot question if there are no private providers in the city or town, or if the service has an annual fiscal impact of less than $100,000. There's also an exception for cities and towns that already offer broadband.

"This bill is about fairness," Miller told Ars via e-mail. "This bill is meant to even the playing field and eliminate socialized/non-commercial services provided by municipalities. I simply want to vote to allow for my city to provide a service if that service is already being provided by another company. Also this bill eliminates subsidizing city provided services and does not allow unfair competition. However, at the end of the day, municipalities can provide these services as long as their constituents want them to."

Miller pointed out that he has "passed legislation in the past two years that have greatly broadened Missourians' access to broadband." A bill Miller sponsored in 2013 was designed to make it easier for wireless companies to put up cell towers, but a group representing municipalities complained that it limited their control over the placement of the towers. The bill was blocked by a judge after municipalities filed a lawsuit.

Federal Communications Chairman Tom Wheeler is looking into whether the FCC can invalidate state laws that limit municipal broadband, using FCC authority to promote competition in local telecommunications markets by removing barriers that impede infrastructure investment. Community broadband providers in Tennessee and North Carolina have petitioned the FCC to preempt state laws that prevent them from expanding.

Promoted Comments

This bill is meant to even the playing field and eliminate socialized/non-commercial services provided by municipalities.

This is a ridiculous market fetish taken to its logical conclusion. Someone has confused "private enterprises sometimes do better than government provision of services" with "governments should not be allowed to do better than private enterprises." Hey idiot, let's also prohibit police departments if they offer non-commercial services and thereby undercut private security firms.